Whether federal courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of its own regulations

QUESTION PRESENTED This case presents the following question: whether federal courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations (commonly referred to as “Auer deference”), as the Court of Appeals did here with respect to a claim by Unity HealthCare, a rural, non-profit acute care hospital, for a “volume decrease adjustment” provided for under the Medicare statute, 42 U.S.C. § and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health & Human Services, 42 C.F.R. § 412.92(e)(8). In Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. __ (June 26, 2019), the Court declined to overrule Auer and Seminole Rock, but effectively limited their application by specifying the circumstances under which Aver deference continues to be applicable. As discussed below, under the Court’s prior rulings and longstanding practices, the Court should grant Petitioner’s writ of certiorari, vacate the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and remand the matter to that court for consideration in light of Kisor. 1 Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997). See also Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 413-14 (1945).